DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a mental abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality or another technology nor do they integrate the exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 1 cites an apparatus to providing notification information related to traffic conditions.
Under Step 2A, prong 1 the claims can be interpreted as a claim to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, and a claim to collecting and comparing known information. See below:
acquire current law information as road traffic-related law information
collecting information
determine whether the current law information comprises a revised provision provided by revision made to past law information, the past law information being held in a storage of the vehicle
analyzing it, comparing known information
cause, when determining that the current law information comprises the revised
provision, an interface of the vehicle to present a notification that encourages handling in
compliance with the revised provision
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis
Under Step 2A Prong 2:
The non-transitory computer readable recording medium, processor and interface do not have a technological improvement computer functionality or another technology. The use of the processor incorporates the idea into a technical environment but are field of use without concrete machine control or material transformation. The use of an interface merely provides the result but are field of use without concrete machine control or material transformation.
Under Step 2B:
The elements such as the non-transitory computer readable recording medium processor and interface are generic computing and sensing components which are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. The claim recites the same abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; and a claim to collecting and comparing known information”. The claims cites additional elements relating to identifying, detecting and notifying of traffic laws but the element(s) does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobuchi (JP H11154299 A) in view of Morita (JP 2000180193 A).
Claim 1. Kobuchi teaches a vehicle processing apparatus configured to be applied to a vehicle, the vehicle processing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (page 5- a vehicle computer 8);
and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium (Page- the storage unit 12) containing a program configured to be executed by the one or more processors, wherein the program comprises one or more commands, and the one or more commands are configured to cause the one or more processors to acquire current law information as road traffic-related law information
(Page 5– These demodulated data are sent to the vehicle computer 8. The vehicle computer 8 processes and uses the data thus obtained from the broadcast station 2 and the beacon device 3. ),
determine whether the current law information comprises a revised provision provided by revision made to past law information
(Page 10- According to the present embodiment, each vehicle detects a change in regulation (including new establishment and cancellation of regulation) and sends it to the information center, so that the information center can quickly and easily know the change in road regulation. Become. By receiving the update data from the information center, each vehicle can quickly and easily know the change in the road regulation.),
the past law information being held in a storage of the vehicle
(Page 6- In the in-vehicle terminal device 5, the update data is written in the storage unit 12. Then, the updated data is used for the subsequent processing. For example, at the time of map display or route calculation, processing based on the changed road regulation is performed.).
Kobuchi further discloses using new or revised provisions and displaying the provisions to the user but does not specifically disclose cause, when determining that the current law information comprises the revised provision, an interface of the vehicle to present a notification that encourages handling in compliance with the revised provision.
However, Morita teaches cause, when determining that the current law information comprises the revised provision, an interface of the vehicle to present a notification that encourages handling in compliance with the revised provision\
(Page 7- For example, referring to FIG. 9, when the current position of the vehicle (own vehicle position) approaches a restricted (traffic prohibited) link, a warning is issued from speaker 18 as "Walk straight ahead at next intersection." Please turn right or left. "You can warn the driver of the restriction information by outputting a voice. By issuing such a warning, the driver can easily know the regulation information at the destination of the vehicle.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the interface as taught by Morita within the system of Kobuchi for the purpose of notifying the driver of a maneuvering update in an effort to indicate current traffic conditions on a sensed position and prevent an accident.
Claim 2. Kobuchi and Morita teach the vehicle processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more commands are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause, when determining that the current law information comprises the revised provision, the interface to present the notification at a timing corresponding to a content of the revised provision
(Morita Page 4- Further, there may be a case where a road is newly closed due to road construction or a new traffic regulation is added. Therefore, when the above-mentioned regulation information is provided from the road beacon 100, the regulation information data is updated by storing the information in the writable storage device 174. If the new regulation is on the calculated route, that fact is warned, and if necessary, the route calculation is performed again. ).
Claim 3. Kobuchi and Morita teach the vehicle processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more commands are configured to cause the one or more processors to acquire, upon startup of the vehicle, the current law information, and cause, when the revised provision comprises a content to be handled before a start of the vehicle, the interface to present the notification at a timing before the start of the vehicle
(Morita Page 5- (Step S1) When the vehicle engine is started and the vehicle navigation device 1 is turned on, the vehicle navigation device 1 checks the regulation information data stored in the storage device 174, and the time limit has passed. If there is regulatory information, delete it from the data. ).
Claim 5. Kobuchi and Morita teach the vehicle processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more commands are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause, when the revised provision comprises a content to be handled in traveling of the vehicle, the interface to present the notification at a timing corresponding to a surrounding situation of the vehicle
(Morita Page 4- Further, there may be a case where a road is newly closed due to road construction or a new traffic regulation is added. Therefore, when the above-mentioned regulation information is provided from the road beacon 100, the regulation information data is updated by storing the information in the writable storage device 174. If the new regulation is on the calculated route, that fact is warned, and if necessary, the route calculation is performed again. ).
4. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobuchi and Morita and further in view of Sato (JP 2000168500 A ).
Claim 4. Kobuchi and Morita teach the vehicle processing apparatus according to claim 3, and further discloses determines the status of the revised provisions after starting the vehicle wherein the one or more commands are configured to cause the one or more processors to impose, when the revised provision comprises the content to be handled before the start of the vehicle, a restriction on the start of the vehicle, determine whether the content demanded by the revised provision to be handled before the start of the vehicle has been handled, and cancel, when determining that the content demanded by the revised provision to be handled before the start of the vehicle has been handled, the restriction on the start of the vehicle.
However, Sato teaches wherein the one or more commands are configured to cause the one or more processors to impose, when the revised provision comprises the content to be handled before the start of the vehicle, a restriction on the start of the vehicle, determine whether the content demanded by the revised provision to be handled before the start of the vehicle has been handled, and cancel, when determining that the content demanded by the revised provision to be handled before the start of the vehicle has been handled, the restriction on the start of the vehicle
(Page 5/6- When the buckle 11 of the seatbelt 10 is attached to the attachment portion 12 and the wearing presence / absence determining portion 13 determines that the seatbelt has been worn, the engine start control portion 16, the engine 15 is permitted to start and the engine 15 can be started.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the commands as taught by Sato within the system of Kobuchi for the purpose of enhancing the system to ensure that the driver has complied to certain safety requirements prior to operation of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights